Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 75 of 75

Thread: Not building the B-70 when we could have was really dumb

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,584
    But none of those engines were super sonic.
    On top of what FBW wrote, De Havilland was test running a supersonic Turbojet with a 27000 lbs thrust, the Gyron, in 1953.

    ps - After reading this topic I am starting to see scenes of Monty Pytons "what have the Romans ever done for us" sketch in my head

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Virgina, USA
    Posts
    63
    Well, a bit of semantics here. NO turbojet (or turbofan) engine is "supersonic. Jet engines can't ingest and operate in a supersonic airflow. They use fixed or variable ramps (or spikes) to create a shock wave in front of the engine to slow the air to subsonic speeds and allow the engine to operate. It's the airframe that goes supersonic, not the engine (except as a part of the overall airframe structure.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    340
    F/A-XX: The B-70 would have been useful over North Vietnam, it would have been immune to enemy air defenses....
    While I agree that the B-70 would have been less vulnerable than the B-52 over North Vietnam, how would it be "useful"? Are you proposing dropping dumb 700LB bombs at MACH 3+ from 70,000 feet? That would likely result in a very wide circular error....The thought of a B-70 in a conventional bombing role makes even less sense that it's nuclear role, and Vietnam was a non-nuclear, non-cruise missile conflict- with some use of tactical missiles and precision weapons, but with systems not intended for the B-70.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,524
    The GE J-93 engines were in the near 30,000 pound class. If the B-70 had not been cancelled Pratt and others would have developed their own engines of that power. How much longer was it before engines that powerful became generally available?
    Looking at some of the engines mentioned by FBW -

    The Olympus 593 of production Concordes delivered over 30,000 lbf dry & almost 40K with reheat. It was derated from the engine on the prototypes. Cruise speed of Concorde was just over M2.

    The Orenda Iroquois was delivering over 25,000 lbf in the late 1950s, for M2+.

    The RD-7 delivered 24,000 lbf dry & 36,000 lbf wet in 1964, for M1.4.

    They all used standard fuels.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    448
    add Cuba!
    Thanks,

    Buddha

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,916
    While the B-70A will always be the most beautiful supersonic jet to me, I dare wonder if they had went conservative.

    I wouldn't have minded to see B-58 replaced with a layout like the B-70A. Four J79 rather than six engines. Podded engine bays separated into two pairs like on B-1A but more flattened and scoop-shaped engine intakes to come to a point like on B-70A, using the intakes to shield the landing gear and internal space between the engines. I always liked the Loch Ness monster neckline of the B-70A with its Viggen-like canards. And if it could have a horizontal beaver tail and twin verticals over the engine bays like on the Tomcat. B-70A really was a glorified theater bomber in range. And with its structural limitations, it would have been prone to accidents retiring air-frames way too early for the investment.
    Go Huskers!

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,889
    It was a North American product, the company that defined the 50's and 60's with their products (mainly Saber and Vigilante). Add to that that Rocketdyne was an entity of NAA and you'd see that never in history a company ever has defined so much the future of aerospace (BAe if seen as a single entity could be but this could be revisionism by aglomerating the diversity of entities it was at the time)... Today, SpaceX and LM comes into mind but shsssssst. Don't wake up the trolls
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 20th October 2017 at 01:02.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Lincoln Ne
    Posts
    159
    The 40s too. They designed the P-51!!

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    523
    No doubt about it....the North American Aviation P-51 was the premier fighter of the war.
    Replacing the original Allison engine with the Rolls Royce Merlin transformed the Mustang to a fighter that
    was able to take the war to the Germans with its long range and performance over 15,000 feet (due to the Merlin engine built under licence in the US by Packard).

    The legendary Lockheed Skunk Works headed by Kelly Johnson has produced top aircraft like the SR-71 and U-2 (interesting that the first jet engine the Skunk Works started with in 1943 was the British Goblin jet engine).

    Other pioneers like Bill Lear with 120 patents, which is an outstanding number for one man in his lifetime, embody the best traditions in advances in aviation along with engineers in Britain, France, Germany and Russia.

    Added later:

    With honourable mentions to engineers from Sweden and Canada....I am sure I have forgotten others.

    All generations stand on the shoulders of others who have gone before which is the way of all progress....the number of innovations in Britain handed to a plate to others include the Rolls Royce Nene turbojet given to USSR in 1947 (authorised by the new Labour government under a spirit of co-operation) and reverse engineered to give the Klimov VK-1 used in the mass produced MiG-15 is one example....same engine built under licence as Pratt & Whitney J42 was used in the Grumman F9F.....another example is the Miles M.52 where all the research work was handed over on a plate to Bell after the new Labour government implemented cuts. Bell went on to use all the work done to produce the Bell X-1 first supersonic jet.....look at the pictures of both planes.....I am sure there are many more examples
    Last edited by Tony; 30th October 2017 at 17:52. Reason: correct spelling
    Stand up for what you believe in even if you are standing alone...Sophie Scholl (9 May 1921 - 22 February 1943)

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Lincoln Ne
    Posts
    159
    Also North American produce the Vigilante. Although it was a medium bomber, its design was the prototype of many fighters such as the F-14, F-15, and the MIG 29 and 31. It is apparent that the North American engineers were at the top of the game.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,203
    Bomber? Who did he bomb? He is the same bomber as the F-111 - sea interceptor

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,584
    its design was the prototype of many fighters such as the F-14, F-15, and the MIG 29 and 31
    It was?
    The chaps at Grumman and Mig might be surprised with that one.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    Such things as the su 15 A were being designed at the same time as the Vigilante Logical1


  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Lincoln Ne
    Posts
    159
    The Vigilante's design with the broad body, wing on top and side air intakes with the top over hang was indeed the grandfather of the later fighters. Altho it had just the one vertical tail member, look it up, NA'a first design had two, but the Navy reject it. With the original design the Vigilante looked exactly like a larger F-15.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,584
    The Vigilante's design with the broad body, wing on top and side air intakes with the top over hang was indeed the grandfather of the later fighters. Altho it had just the one vertical tail member, look it up, NA'a first design had two, but the Navy reject it. With the original design the Vigilante looked exactly like a larger F-15.
    I supose that the Fairey Delta was the prototype for the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale then... Or was it the Mikoyan ye-8? It looks just like a Gripen, just like a Vigilante looks like a Tomcat.

    Look, North American Rockwell did answer to the FX (the one that MD won and gave the USAF the Eagle) competition with this:

    Name:  naa-f-15-b.jpg
Views: 89
Size:  275.5 KB

    And the only thing in common with the Vigilante its the name of the company and the fact that its a twin engined jet, nevermind all the other jets that you´ve mentioned, Grumman didnt build the tomcat based on the Vigilante, neither did MDouglas for the Eagle and the idea that the Fulcrum was based on North American Rockwell work is... Words elude me.
    Last edited by Sintra; 8th November 2017 at 23:34.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES